to be? if he does go to court, it's likely going to be a civil rights case. but that's not a jury i would want to sit on. well, that's it for now. this is mike huckabee from new york. god bless. stay tuned for justice with jeanine pirro. >> hello, and welcome to justice. i'm judge jeanine pirro. thanks for being with us tonight. this is the biggest cover-up since watergate. a story no one wants to talk about. he didn't protect your sons, so he could protect his presidency and the wanna be future presidency of his then secretary of state. he didn't protect your sons, choosing instead to protect the feelings of those in the muslim world. this week, ben rhodes white house e-mail is the benghazi smoking gun. susan rice was prepped to say the so-called protests were rooted in an internet video so

as not to show a broader failure of policy. now, we have impeached a president for lying about sex with an intern. a president has resigned in face of certain impeachment for covering up a burglary. why wouldn't be impeach this president for not defending and the bloodbath known as benghazi? fact, an ambassador sent to an insecure facility that doesn't comply with minimum standards in a designated danger zone. the cia warns of numerous al qaeda training camps in benghazi. our ambassador sends repeated e-mails and emergency cables for more security. fact, it was the anniversary of 9/11. whistle blower greg hicks calls washington to advice an ambassador stevens said he and the benghazi consulate were under attack. general carter hamm tells

washington that our consulate is under siege and our ambassador may be a hostage. fact, everyone in washington knew what was going on based on the drones, the satellites, the audio, the realtime phone calls. they attacked with heavy artillery and rocket propelled grenades. fact, it was a tight presidential race. barack obama campaigning as a war hero, a real commander in chief, claiming al qaeda was on its heels. but obama loses all credibility if the nation thinks al qaeda destroyed our consulate and has killed four americans including our ambassador. so the conspiracy about a video begins. former cia director mike morrell removes the word islamist in describing the extremists. he takes out references to the previous cia warning of an al

qaeda attack. fact, the joint chiefs in defense secretary say troops couldn't get there in time to save our men on the ground. >> there was not enough time, given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond. >> the fiction begins. it was an al qaeda. it was an anti-muslim american-made video. before our eyes, the terrorists become the victims, and the american victims become irrelevant. the president repeats the fiction on "the view," on" david letterman," at the u.n. >> the future must not belong to those who slander islam. >> you even take an ad out to apologize to the muslim world. >> since our founding, the united states has been a nation that respect all faiths. we reject all efforts to

denigrate the religious beliefs of others. but there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. none. >> in fact, to add insult to injury, you condemn anyone who says something negative about islam. mr. president, it's not about them. it's about us. you represent us. you're supposed to protect us. instead of condemning the terrorists, you criticized free speech. i don't even think you believe in the first amendment. and you're certainly not a man of your word. >> there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice. >> really? may 2014 and you still haven't brought anyone to justice. and the absurdity of your claim that spontaneous demonstrators actually brought rocket-propelled grenades to protest a video is belied by

your own words yesterday. >> the notion that this is some spontaneous uprising in eastern ukraine is belied by all the evidence of well organized, trained, armed militias with the capacity to shoot down helicopters, generally local protesters don't possess that capacity of surface to air missiles or whatever weapons were used to shoot down helicopters. >> wow. here we are 20 months later, and it takes a judge's order to force the release of e-mails that the president wouldn't produce to an equal branch of government, there specifically to check and balance the president's office. and tonight, in an exclusive justice interview, we find out that even those documents may have been tampered with. it appears that the conspiracy was so fast, the intent to

obstruct the truth so uniform, that documents were withheld. the cover-up is classic. and the sad part is no one, including you, mr. president, will tell us if you issued the cross-border authority to protect and defend americans. mr. president, it's called an abrogation of duty. you have not taken your oath to honestly and faithfully execute the duties of your office. as commander in chief, you have not protected us. this dereliction of duty as commander in chief demands your impeachment. your cover-up was for political advantage. virtually everyone involved in your conspiracy in the stonewalling of congress, the denying of key access to witnesses all adds up to a classic cover-up. and what's that? you were elected?

there is no contract with someone who thinks that the american people are nothing more than pawns in an all-consuming power play to change who we are as a nation. you swore to protect and defend the american people, but instead, you let americans die, not lifting a finger to help them. mr. president, none of us want to believe that our president would let americans die, but the arrogance, the failure to act, the lies, the cover-up make it clear that you, mr. president, have defrauded the american people. you, mr. president, have violated your constitutional oath. you have not faithfully executed your duties in the office of the president. and that's my open. with me now, former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. and fox news contributor john bolton. good evening, ambassador. >> glad to be with you, judge. >> all right, what is the latest information that we just found

out on the ben rhodes e-mail tell you? >> well, i think there can't be any doubt at all now that we've got an administration that's absolutely consumed with the potentially devastating political effect on the president's re-election campaign. this attack in benghazi. it belies their whole narrative that the president himself had just said a few days before that osama bin laden is dead, general motors is alive, the war on al qaeda is almost over. everything, all the tragic events of that evening of september 11th undercut that. so the combination of ideology and political reality drive to this cover-up, and there can't be any argument anymore that's what it is. that's why we need more information. we've got a lot that's come out because of this request. there's a lot more there. there's no doubt about it. >> well, what should happen? you know, now that we have this e-mail, that by the way, should have been handed over to the

congressional oversight and reform committee and wasn't. they stonewalled just as they did in "fast and furious" but now that the judicial watch, and we'll speak to someone from judicial watch, has gotten that e-mail, we expect that many more will be coming. what happens for not handing out this information? is there a sanction or do we just say, oh, that's the way it's done? >> well, i think it's going to be hard to impose penalties on the people who did it. i think really now the way ahead lies in the house select committee that speaker boehner has announced he will appoint. because the select committee's got to pursue this investigation in ways that really get to the bottom of things. the public hearings that get so much attention are the last things that should happen. we need former secretary of state hillary clinton up, giving hours and hours of depositions before they put her back out in public testimony. that's the way to find out what

happened. you can't get effective investigations done by members of congress alternating, asking questions for five minutes, for somebody who is articulate and knows how to dodge questions. you need to know what you and i know as lawyers has to happen, an extensive hour after hour deposition. >> there's no question, and we need someone who knows how to question a witness. and you know, this handing off the witness to the next person just allows the witness to, you know, continue to talk without answering the question. but ambassador, this administration continues to spin and mock the investigation to get to the bottom of benghazi. i think it was yesterday pelosi saying benghazi, benghazi, benghazi. you held the position that susan rice held when she told the world that the benghazi massacre was a result of a video. how is a prep session conducted? how does it work? when you were there in the same position? >> well, i didn't do prep

sessions because i was never asked to speak to an issue that was completely outside my jurisdiction. look, being a u.n. ambassador is a fine job. susan rice had absolutely nothing to do with benghazi. i think she was selected to go on the five sunday talk shows because by definition, she couldn't make a mistake since she didn't know anything, she couldn't reveal anything that she shouldn't have. this really poses, i think, a critical point. where was secretary of state hillary clinton on those five talk shows? this was her post that was attacked, her people who were killed. she was out there issuing a press release while the attack was going on, blaming it on the video. she was there at andrews air force base when the remains were brought back, blaming it on the video, and yet two days later, she can't go on the sunday talk shows? there's a story there. i think it could reveal a lot about what was going on inside the administration. >> you know, the accountability

review board she says is going to investigate what happened in benghazi that never even questioned her, made up of her husband's, several of their friends. really makes it clear that there was no intention to hold her accountable because no one bothered to question her. >> i think within the administration, there was panic across the state department, the white house, and other agencies because they could see the political ramifications. and the arb, you know, has a very limited mandate. it's useful for what it does in some cases, but it was never a full investigation. and for the washington press corps to buy the argument that that was the answer is just disgraceful, not one of a long list of disgraces, but disgraceful. >> ambassador bolton, always good to get your take. thanks for being with us this evening. >> thank you, judge. >> coming up, the benghazi truth leaks out. and vote tonight. should the president be

impeached for his administration's handles of the

almost 20 months after four americans massacred, the mainstream media is finally seriously looking at benghazi. really? indisputable e-mails link the white house to susan rice's false video narrative. a top military intelligence official testifies the white house knew right away it was not a video. justice has covered this tragedy since the beginning and we have never stopped fighting for answers. with me now, tom sutton, the president of judicial watch, an organization that also fought for the truth and finally obtained those unredacted benghazi e-mails and documents through a freedom of information

request. tom, good evening. thanks for what you have done. how did you get the e-mails and the documents? what did you have to do? >> first, we asked for them. and when the obama administration ignored our request, we went to federal court. we asked for them, by the way, beginning in october of 2012. about a month after the attack. the administration ignored us. we sued in june of last year. finally, because it was in court, the administration promised to turn over the documents. and they waited obviously until the last minute, april 17th, to finally turn over the big smoking gun. >> you know, from october of i guess 2012 until i think you said it was june, you waited for them to give you the information before you went to court. did you think they would ever do it? >> you know, the nice thing about being in court is it's a regular process. it's not a political process like congressional investigations. we knew we were going to get

something. and almost as importantly, we knew what we weren't going to get in the sense the administration needs to tell us what they're not giving us and explain to the court why. so we now have a guide for what's out there, at least from our court case, and you know, if congress is paying attention, and frankly, if the media starts paying attention, they would have a better idea of what is out there and what still needs to be released. >> all right. what was your first reaction when you saw the e-mails? >> the whole batch of e-mails is fascinating and extraordinary. the talking points e-mail stood out as an important document that we knew was going to have an impact. i was always confused because there were these talking points that everyone had been talking about, but they were only prepared for congress, it looked like. and i was wondering, where were these other talking points for susan rice? are these the same as the congressional talking points? what was going on? aha, we found out. there was a different set of talking points that had additional false information in it, namely the internet video

being behind the protests, and we found it in just the last two weeks. >> what is your take, tom, of the mainstream media's coverage of benghazi? and the fact that, you know, for so long, they were not interested in covering this? >> well, you know, unfortunately, the administration has a lot of friendly allies in the media, and frankly, fox news and sheryl atkinson at cbs news when she was there, were the only two big media organizations interested in pursuing benghazi. speaker boehner stood in the way. he finally got out of the way this week. many republican leaders in the house didn't want to look into it. the fact it was little old judicial watch that had to get the information out there is an indictment of congress and the media. >> all right, it also is a testament to your determination. last, very quickly, are you trying to obtain even more information on benghazi, tom?

>> we are. we have additional lawsuits pending. more freedom of information act requests that are also being ignored, and even in this batch of documents, they're withholding key pieces of information that we're going to have to battle them over in court if they don't want to voluntarily disclose it. >> all right, tom, thanks so much for being with us this evening. >> thank you. >> all right, and coming up, bombshell benghazi testimony from one high ranking general reignites that debate. did the president of the united states leave four americans to die? that's next. and later, congressman jason chaffetz tells justice in an exclusive interview about new information that could blow the benghazi investigation wide open.

there are counts of time, space, and capability, discussions of the question, could we have gotten there in time to make a difference. well, the discussion is not could or could not of time space and capability. the point is we should have tried. >> that was retired brigadier general robert loval testifying before congress this week. if anyone knows what should have been done, it's general lovell, the deputy director at command at the time of the attack. why was no help sent? why did four americans lose their lives? with us, colonel david hunt. you just heard from the brigadier general. did these four americans have to die? >> no, absolutely not. we have to remember the timeline. the cairo embassy along with about 20 other embassies were being attacked on that day of september 11th. the cairo embassy happened eight hours before benghazi. >> not in the same way, colonel,

excuse me, not in the same way. they were trying to climb the wall. i was in cairo two weeks ago. there was no claim they had rocket-propelled grenades in cairo. >> that's true, but my point was there were 20 embassies throughout the middle east that were under attack that day. my point is we should have known, we should have known that there was danger there. the benghazi incident takes eight hours. the president, he has an order to prepare, but never gives the order to execute. lovell was there along with 1200 other people who were watching this in different 15 headquarters. >> i have to interrupt you again. where did you get the number, lovell was there with 1200 people? are you suggesting that 1200 people actually watched what was going on in benghazi in realtime? >> yeah, that's a minimum. there were over 15 organizations or headquarters like the fbi, the cia, military, et cetera. and at least 100 staff in each

one of those places that were watching in realtime and listening to what was going on in benghazi. lovell testified that by 3:00 a.m., everybody knew this was a coordinated attack, period. >> all right. so it's a coordinated attack. so why, if we know it's a coordinated attack, you say there was a mobilization order, why didn't we, if the attack went on for eight hours, get there? aren't there emergency forces that are prepared for this? >> we have an organization in europe called charlie first italian special forces that was four hours away in croatia. the answer is we were never given the order. we could have been there easily within four hours to affect that battle, and we did not get the order from the president of the united states, who was the only one who could give the order. >> all right, so once the troops were mobilized, is that maybe where a few months ago, people

started talking about there was a stand down, that essentially it was an assumption we were going forward because there was a mobilization, but there was never the final order from the president? is that what you're saying? >> yeah, it's two-fold. it's that and an accusation the cia chief in benghazi told his guys to stand down. he just said, wait a minute, but yes, it's two parts. >> okay. so do you think someone talked the president out of this? what do you think is going on in the white house? we know he's there and 1,200 people are watching this. it amazes me why nobody is talking. what do you think happened? >> i think the joint chief said that this is not going to be perfect. we could have casualties. there was a risk. and the politicians inside the white house made a calculated risk before election, you can't afford to have a failure. i think it was a political decision, not military. military could have affected this. we were never given the chance. >> that's a shame. all right, colonel hunt, of

course, there are going to be risks. there is risk in all war. thank you so much for being with us, colonel david hunt. all right, and coming up, did the white house actually alter documents to the cover-up, and make sure that we didn't hear about the truth of the attack? congressman jason chaffetz in a "juslines, logon

to foxnews.com. welcome back to "justice." >> tonight, the first in a new segment we call fast justice. some of the week's most interesting cases. and i hand down my ruling. first, an update on a case we brought you earlier this year. a former high school teacher, stacey dean ramble, sentenced to 30 days for raping a 14-year-old student who later killed herself. the montana supreme court has just ruled that the judge's sentence was too lenient and in

fact illegal, after the judge accused the victim of partially being at fault for her rape. the sentence must now be a minimum of the legally required two years. the court stating that the judge could not even resentence this defendant. the montana court has several other disciplinary actions before it regarding not the defendant but this time the judge. i have an idea. take this judge off the bench, strip him of the word honorable in front of his name. he's an embarrassment to a time-honored profession. >> and the second case tonight is a doozy. get this one. driver charlene simon of ontario, canada, struck and killed a 17-year-old boy riding his bicycle in a 2012 accident that also injured two other teens. no charges were filed. get this. the driver, charlene, the one who killed the teen, who was innocently riding his bicycle in a place he had a right to be, is

now suing the dead boy's family. you heard me right. she, the driver who killed the boy, is suing his family. why? she claims her life has been ruined by the experience. her life? she actually wants the boy's parents to cough up more than a million dollars for the emoti emotional trauma she says she has endured. the reason? because the boy and his friends weren't wearing reflective clothing while riding their bikes at night. and now for the backstory. this is the part i like the most. driver charlene simon's husband, who was driving in another car behind her when she hit the boys and provided eye witness testimony to the accident, just happens to be a police officer. and so charlene doesn't even have to take a drug or alcohol test, and no tickets are issued. my ruling, whatever judge gets this pathetic lawsuit should

dismiss it immediately, but should impose an additional court cost for wasting the court's time, and the parents of the young boy on the bike should be able to sue her for traumatizing them not once but twice. and i suggest internal affairs look into the issue of what kind of investigation was done regarding this police officer's wife. and now, back to benghazi. fireworks on capitol hill this week as lawmakers fight to uncover the truth behind benghazi massacre. earlier today, i spoke with congressman jason chaffetz, a member of the house oversight committee about the latest bombshell information in what he believes the white house really knew. congressman jason chaffetz, thanks for being with us this evening. look, it's been a wild week. the production of documents that many are calling a smoking gun regarding benghazi. tell us what happened this week. >> well, we heard testimony from a general who was very candid about being in the room with the

lack of response there from the military, the security profile that was in place. the fact that they actually did send documentation back to the state department saying that they believe it was al qaeda that was responsible for the attack attacks, ansar al sharia. this is just outrageous. it's just not the american way, and we're not going to stand for it. as chairman issa said, we're not just playing a gym. you have to comply with a dually issued subpoena. >> congressman, here's the problem. i know you're not playing a game. i was a prosecutor, i was a judge. you subpoena information, you don't get it, and then all of a sudden, 20 months later, somebody else has to have a court case. there are three branches of government that i don't have to tell you, and you have on the congressional oversight and reform committee the obligation to make sure that certain other branches are doing what they're supposed to, and they're

thumbing their nose at you. so what do you do about it? >> yeah, well look, i think the speaker did the right thing, where earlier, he announced he's going to put together a select committee. it's going to raise the stakes, raise it up a little bit, but we did the right thing in the oversight and government reform committee. we issued a subpoena in august of last year. and we still have documents trickling in. in the last 30 days, we had roughly 3,200 new documents come in. thank goodness judicial watch did what they did and they were successful in the courts. then, what you need to understand is now that we have seen the judicial watch documents and we have seen the documents that they gave to the oversight committee on april 17th, you put them side by side, you look at the exact same documents, you're going to find that there are different redact find there are different classifications. we even have a document where they wanted to retroactively change the classification. it was an unclassified document. >> you're saying something very significant right now,

congressman. what are you saying? that they are changing the documents after they have been subpoenaed to benefit themselves? if you're talking about the same document, one is subpoenaed by congress, one is required by a court. you're saying that they are doctoring up these documents? >> i'm saying that they're different. you put them side-by-side, the exact same document, not all of them, but one in particular i have seen and looked at with my own eyes, you put that same document side-by-side, different redactions, different clasfkdz, and another document, it was unclassified and now suddenly, they say, well, that should be classified. in fact, we don't want to have that released until the year 2037. >> congressman, how does that make you feel? what do you want to do? what will a select committee be able to do? because everyone is saying it's a phony scandal. you're coming up with real facts that the white house knew it wasn't a video. and we've got people testifying this week that it clearly, there

was no help sent to benghazi. now i have you saying something tonight, incredible, that they're changing documents that should be the same documents. what do we do? >> that's where chairman issa has issued a subpoena demanding that secretary kerry himself appear before the oversight committee. that's still moving forward. the appointment of a select committee to make sure we get the folks in here, and then we have to have the subpoena power and the emphasis so there's not the stovepiping in congress where you have these different committees looking at different bits of information, get one group so that these people have the authority and the ability to question witnesses. not just five minutes at a time, but for longer periods of time, and get to the truth. that's all we're trying to do, get to the truth. >> congressman, is there any way you can have one person do the questions? if everybody has five minutes, they're not all on the same page. have a real prosecutor who knows how to get an answer to a question, and won't let somebody just dance and, you know,

continue to filibuster. is there a possibility of that happening? >> i think there is. i don't know exactly how it will be structured. it's new territory for me. certainly, the house has had history with select committees. you get somebody like a trey gowdy who has been doing this for 20 years, who knows how to draw out the facts and make the case. look, you do have to have professionals in there. i think i'm pretty good at questioning witnesses, but there's nothing more frustrating that getting up to four and a half minutes and say yg have 30 seconds and the guy wants to give you a ten-minute answer. i think there's a way in the process that a select committee can be crafted where you don't have the types of constraints that you normally have in the setting. >> finally, congressman, you know, people are still talking about the phony scandal, the republican conspiracies, and all of this stuff. do you think that a select committee will get us to the point where with a bipartisan committee from the house, there can ultimately be some kind of

sanction for what we now know were lies to the american people from the greatest government on the face of the earth, where they are just bold-faced lies and constant delaying of our getting the truth while four men died? >> and you hit the right point there at the end. we have four dead americans. we got hundreds of embassies and consulates who get thousands of people serving overseas. i just want the truth. i want to know how it is they started to live in what ultimately ended up being a death trap that we know as benghazi. what happened during the attack? why did it take so long to get help? afterwards, why were we fed this perpetuation of mistruths. it flat out wasn't true. these are the facts and everybody understands that now. we're going to get to the truth. i'm proud of what the speaker is doing. i think it's the right move, and we'll get there. >> all right, congressman jason chaffetz, as always, thank you for being with us this evening and thank you for being a voice

of reason there. coming up, more obamacare problems, next.

how many of you thought that we were done hearing about obamacare website problems? the latest, the company hired to fix the disastrous site wants an additional $121 million of your dollars. with me, betsy mccoy. why do we have to give them $1

twn million? >> because they have to create most of the back end of this website. the reason for this is the lies, lies, and lies that came from the president and his secretary of health and human services. you remember last summer, secretary sebelius assured congress the website would be ready. then when it collapsed in october, she assured the nation it would be ready by december 1st. but that was only the front end. and in fact, the president even assured bill o'reilly right on this network that it was fixed. remember super bowl night? but in fact, only the cosmetics were fixed. the back end was still missing. >> what is the back end? explain that. >> that's all the mechanics that link as many as 21 agencies so when someone applies for a subsidy on the obamacare exchange, they can check with all these different agencies, the social security numbers, the income, the labor department, the irs. none of that was completed. i'll give you an example.

this is like, honey, the first kitchen contract i signed, i forgot to ask for running water, so the new contract costs more. >> all right, so now they say with $121 million, that we'll get the website fixed, but this is a different company. >> it is a different company. >> should we sue the other company for the money we already paid them? it's our money. henne, they didn't fix it. get the money back. >> this is clearly a case of throwing good money after bad, and frankly, it's time to repeal this clunker. >> okay, i know you're still carrying it around, but the enrollment period is over. the horror stories continue. is there anything positive -- let's try to be really positive. anything good happen in obamacare? >> well, many, many people are glad they can keep their kids on their parents' plans until they're 26, but that's a one-liner in obamacare. that can be included in any new

law. so the point is to repeal this, unfortunately, many republican leaders are now saying, we don't think repeal is possible. so we're going to ask the american people to just settle for a fixing this within the framework of the law. those republicans clearly haven't read this law because if they had, even four years after it passed, they would know this law is corrupt at its core. >> you know what i think is interesting, betsy? is that the 2014 elections are going to be very telling as to what happens with obamacare. >> it will be a referendum on obamacare. >> betsy mccoy, always good to talk to you about obamacare. thanks for being with us tonight. coming up, the botched execution of a convicted murd murderer sparks new outrage in the death penalty debate. should a killer suffer? should a killer suffer? i'll t [ grunting ]

i'm taking off, but, uh, don't worry. i'm gonna leave the tv on for you. and if anything happens, don't forget about the new xfinity my account app. you can troubleshoot technical issues here. if you make an appointment, you can check out the status here. you can pay the bill, too. but don't worry about that right now. okay. how do i look? ♪ thanks. [ male announcer ] troubleshoot, manage appointments, and bill pay from your phone. introducing the xfinity my account app.

this week's botched execution of oklahoma inmate clayton lockette has reignited the death penalty debate. in a moment, mistake. here's what sent him to death row to begin with. >> reporter: we now know it was 43 minutes until the first injection until he finally died of a heart attack. we thought you should know that his victim endured hours of unthinkable agony on the night that she died. she was driven in her own truck to a remote area. she was beaten, repeatedly raped, and forced to watch her own grave being dug. when she told her attacker she would go to police, clayton lockette put a shotgun to her head and pulled the trigger.

that gun jammed. he cleared the weapon, despite her skraem screams he shot her in the head. he ordered the police to bury her. stephanie's parents said this, quoting here, every day we are left with horrific images of what the last hours of stephanie's life was like. did she cry out for us to help her. we are left with the knowledge that she needed us and we were not aware of it and therefore unable to help her. >> there was outrage that it took 43 minutes for the convicted killer to die. indeed, the 8th amendment of the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and they have repeatedly held that the death penalty in itself does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. the only issue for debate is 43 minutes cruel and unusual. now the death penalty invokes a

knee-jerk reaction. supporters can't understand why it's so rarely sought. i'm not one of those people who thinks that the death penalty necessarily deters murders, but what i do know is the death penalty will specifically deter someone who has killed from killing again. for me, the most important reason to impose the death penalty is that it is a just punishment. now although we say as a society we want justice, the reality of seeking it is a different matter. the press most often focuses on the criminal. we long to find reasonable explanations for horrific criminal acts. we want to believe that the most violent criminals are better now, that they won't do it again. rarely do we even think about the victim. my take, stephanie was 19.

she was not only a teenager, she was an only child. she had her whole life ahead of her. she didn't do anything wrong. her misfortune? she was at right place at the wrong time. where they turned her innocent life into a nightmare. she was violated again and again, shot in the head and buried alive. her screams and her cries and her hours of unbearable pain and degradation preceded her final death. he committed the ultimate crime. he deserves nothing less than the ultimate punishment. to me he has forfeited not only his right to walk freely among the rest of us, but also his right to breathe our air, to eat our food and to share our space on this earth. we should not be required to endure his existence for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary.

indeed, we should be allowed to purge our sensibilities of him. he chose to be a murderer. stephanie did not choose to be murdered. the unspeakable atrocity that she endured, her screams for mercy went unanswered. lockette should be given the same mercy that he gave his victim stephanie and that would be none. 43 minutes be damned. and now for the results of the poll. we asked you should the president be impeached of the administration's handling of the benghazi attacks. barbara says, of course, the whole crew in the white house should go to jail. robert says yes, i believe the president and his crew should all be eric snowden's roommates in russia. and they diane, he should resign

like richard nixon or be impeached. nobody do it in watergate. that's it for us tonight. thanks for joining us.

tonight on huckabee, denoil. >> the documents released are explicitly about the broader areas separate from the attack on benghazi. >> dismissal. >> benghazi, benghazi, benghazi, why aren't we talking about something else. >> conspiracy theorys by the republicans and this one turned out to be bogus. >> where is the truth? >> we knew it was a hostile action. >> the house begins a new investigation in the benghazi attacks. >> as clipper's owner donald sterling fi